Renunciation occupies a structurally pivotal position across the depth-psychology corpus, appearing not as a single doctrine but as a contested site where instinct theory, ascetic theology, developmental psychology, and transpersonal philosophy converge and dispute one another. Freud treats renunciation as the civilizational mechanism by which instinctual gratification is foreclosed under the pressure of authority and the super-ego, generating guilt as its residue; this reading situates renunciation squarely within a dynamic of repression and its consequences for the psyche. Otto Rank reframes it as the artist’s necessary sacrifice — the withdrawal of living energy into the immortalized work — connecting it to archaic patterns of self-offering. Sri Aurobindo disputes what he calls the ‘currently attached’ meaning, insisting that true renunciation is not self-denial of pleasure but freedom from attachment to both action and inaction, egoism and its contrary. The Christian ascetic tradition, represented in Cassian, Climacus, the Philokalia, and Evagrius, develops a graduated taxonomy: renunciation of possessions, then of the will, then of the world itself conceived as a metaphysical orientation toward death. Easwaran redefines the Bhagavad Gita’s final chapter on renunciation as ‘love in action,’ resisting the drab connotation. What emerges is a fundamental tension: whether renunciation liberates desire into higher channels or merely suppresses it, and whether its telos is individual salvation, creative immortality, or social transformation.